Honorable

Well, for half the price, I can jump into a purely handheld platform that already has a massive library of games. Worth it to me until the Switch builds up its own library. But then again, maybe this is just a Me thing. I'm probably the last person on the planet that's never owned a Nintendo handheld. This'd be my first.

Distinguished

Well, for half the price, I can jump into a purely handheld platform that already has a massive library of games. Worth it to me until the Switch builds up its own library. But then again, maybe this is just a Me thing. I'm probably the last person on the planet that's never owned a Nintendo handheld. This'd be my first.

It's not just you. I don't get why people seem to think the Switch is going to replace the DS line. The portability of the Switch is very limited compared to the DS, and even the general consumer is smart enough to see that. These die hard Nintendo fans seem to think they can just expect everyone to shove a Switch in their pocket and dash out the door.

Then there are things like design and price point. Unless Nintendo releases a clamshell Switch with recessed buttons and smaller form factor, and a lower price point, the DS is here to stay.

Honorable

Yeah, I don't see where people are coming from when they say the Switch is a DS replacement. They're two entirely different platforms for two entirely different experiences. The Switch is slightly handheld, but... just because they have one slight similarity doesn't mean the actual handhelds are suddenly redundant or obsolete. I mean, just compare the Zelda game we got on the Switch with the Zelda games designed for the DS, and the difference in the two platforms is obvious.

Reputable

Yeah, I don't see where people are coming from when they say the Switch is a DS replacement. They're two entirely different platforms for two entirely different experiences.

They are now. The thing is, it's likely Nintendo won't design a true successor to the DS line, but rather will design a smaller Switch sometime. It makes more sense for them not to have to develop games for two different platforms, but rather just one platform that can accommodate different experiences.

Now they're releasing a console that lets you play every 3DS game, but without stereoscopic 3D support. In the future, they might release a console that lets you play every Switch game, but without TV and/or motion controllers support.

Anyway, I already have a New 3DS XL and a Switch, but if I didn't have the 3DS, I'd still be interested in the New 2DS. The Switch is great, but its library is very limited right now, while the 2DS has a huge library of games that you simply cannot play on any other (non-3DS) platform.

Honorable

It makes more sense for them not to have to develop games for two different platforms, but rather just one platform that can accommodate different experiences.

I don't know about that. It's like saying it doesn't make sense for devs to make games for PC and consoles. It makes perfect sense, you tap into more markets and sell more things you otherwise wouldn't. And considering that by now Nintendo's handheld platform is so mature and well-controlled and well-established, it doesn't cost Nintendo much of anything to maintain that.

The big thing to remember is that Nintendo makes all its business decisions based on the Japanese market, and then puzzles the rest of the world when those decisions don't make perfect sense everywhere else. That's why the Switch is partly portable: console sales are tanking in Japan because not enough people have time for home gaming. Most gaming is done during commutes and on-the-go. That's why handhelds are HUGE in Japan, much more so than any other part of the world.

So if anything, the Switch isn't an attempt to make handhelds redundant, but rather an attempt to make consoles redundant. But again, two different experiences. High-power single-screen gaming versus low-power dual-screen gaming. The Switch is just semi-portable so that they could reach those Japanese console gamers that stopped buying consoles because they aged into a lifestyle where there isn't time to play games at home.

Reputable

It's like saying it doesn't make sense for devs to make games for PC and consoles.

No, it's not. It's like saying it doesn't make sense for devs to make games for just one console. When you talk about AAA games, it doesn't. AAA games are only restricted to one console when the console's owner pays for the exclusive. Otherwise, the more platforms you publish the game for, the more money you make. 3DS and Switch are such different platforms that you cannot make a single game for both; you have to make two different games. Developing two games is more expensive than developing just one, so neither Nintendo nor anyone else want to do that if it's not necessary. If the 3DS doesn't get a successor, it won't be necessary.

dstarr3 :

High-power single-screen gaming versus low-power dual-screen gaming.

The dual-sceen gimmick isn't important anymore, just like the stereoscopic 3D one. What today is considered high-power will be considered low-power in two years, at most. The New 3DS/2DS is overwhelmingly under-powered today. It's by far the least powerful gaming platform on the planet, far behind mobile phones. No developer wants to work with such restrictions, unless there's a lot of money to be made. It doesn't make sense to start developing a 3DS game now. It's much better to start developing a Switch one. You have at your disposal more power and better tools (Unreal Engine 4). You can target less console owners, but the Switch is going to sell more and more, and in two years a small low-power completely-portable Switch will be feasible.

Share this page

About us

Our community has been around for many years and pride ourselves on offering unbiased, critical discussion among people of all different backgrounds. We are working every day to make sure our community is one of the best.